ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2019
Towards a multi-bioassay-based index for toxicity assessment of fluvial waters.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Low-Mineralized Surface Water viaBiology · 2026Article
- A trait database for the characterization of diatom communities in disconnected pools.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Metal concentrations and biological effects from one of the largest mining disasters in the world (Brumadinho, Minas Gerais, Brazil).Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite their proven reliability for revealing 'acceptable' degrees of toxicity in waste- and reclaimed waters, bioassays are rarely used to assess the toxicity of hazardous contaminants present in natural waters. In this study, we used organisms from different trophic levels to assess the toxicity of water samples collected from four different South Korean rivers. The main objective was to develop a multi-descriptor index of toxicity for undiluted river water. The responses of six test organisms (Aliivibrio fischeri, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Heterocypris incongruens, Moina macrocopa, Danio rerio and Lemna minor) after laboratory exposure to water samples were considered for this index, as well as the frequency of teratologies in diatom assemblages. Each individual test was attributed a toxicity class and score (three levels; no toxicity = 0, low toxicity = 1, confirmed toxicity = 2) based on the organism's response after exposure and a total score was calculated. The proposed index also considers the number of test organisms that received the highest toxicity score (value = 2). An overall toxicity category was then attributed to the water sample based on those two metrics: A = no toxicity, B = slight toxicity, C = moderate toxicity; D = toxicity and E = high toxicity. The susceptibility of the test organisms varied greatly and the sensitivity of their response also differed among bioassays. The combined responses of organisms from different trophic levels and with different life strategies provided multi-level diagnostic information about the intensity and the nature of contamination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30693376What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.